WTA ATP Aus Open 1/17 - 1/30 2022

[mick1303]

The vaccine is science, not politics. Your comparison of discrimination based on ethnicity to getting a shot in the arm is an obvious false equivalent.

It was not intended to be an exact equivalent. It was to show that both are equally not related to sports. Regarding that "the vaccine is science" - it is very naive. Are you going to say that EU/US does not recognize Russian/Chinese/Indian vaccines purely basing on scientific motives?

[ponchi101]

The trials for the Chinese vaccine were performed on Young Chinese Men from the Chinese Army. Not a representative group (my nephew in Venezuela, age 17, got that one. I really think he will escape any virulent form of the disease because he already got it and it went by him as if nothing, not because of the vaccine).
The Russian vaccine skipped the entire stage 3 testing. By now, a mute point, as it was then tested on a very large population (several S. American countries, for example) but it did not follow established trial procedures.
Sometimes, not everything is politics.

[the Moz]

I'm double vaxxed, but I also agree with No-vax that it is a personal choice whether or not to get the shots. But in the context of putting on the AO 2022 his point is moot times infinity. Novak does not have a right to enter any country on the planet he wants by his own rules. The fact that he carries a passport is tacit acknowledgement of such. Whatever the government of Australia or state of Victoria has decided or will decide is their right and they really don't have to explain or justify their actions. Vaccination status and crossing international borders transcends tennis, so the entitlement bubble needs a better argument methinks.

[mmmm8]

...

If WTA can pull events from China for the reason that constitutional rights of one retired player were violated, I don't see why ATP can't exercise its authority. This concerns plenty of players who do not want their rights to be violated. And ATP is association of players above all (at least it should be). Slams belong to ITF as a trademark and financially (but mostly each slam is its own enterprise). But ATP has some authority here - it awards ranking points. If ATP does not recognize an event - it essentially becomes and exo. It will be forever asterisked and the winner may not be considered "real slam winner" if the field will be severely depleted. Remember Wimbledon boycott of 1973. I dare you to find an article about Kodes win, that does not mention a boycott.

There would not even be a need for the WTA or ATP to get involved in any of this if the players, individually or collectively, would simple announce that they will not play China until they can meet with Peng, outside of China, behind closed doors (for the people in the meeting) and get her side of the story. A letter signed by Serena, Naomi, Barty, and almost all players of significance (Raducanu, fluent in Mandarin, could be highly symbolic) would do much more than anything the WTA can really achieve.
For the ATP, a win-win scenario. Roger, Rafa, Novak and the new crew would score a major PR victory by standing by Peng. Of course, Roger has too many financial interests in China, but all other players would stand to win considerable respect if doing so.
Now, if you allow me, I am going to write my letter to Santa for my Xmas presents. I do it alphabetically and my first gift will be ATOM BOMB LAUNCHER.

So, let's say the players demand to meet with Peng outside of China privately. The Chinese government has Peng issue a statement saying she doesn't want to and the government says they won't violate her rights and make her. Then what?

[Deuce]

...

Secondly, the tournament IS open to everyone who qualifies. And people who are not vaccinated simply don't qualify - just like the player ranked #953 in the world doesn't qualify. Just like someone who's not permitted entry to Australia for any reason doesn't qualify.
I see no problem with this at all.
...

I see PLENTY of problems with this statement. "ANY reason"? ANY? Ok, say the tornament in Saudi Arabia says that jews can't qualify for their event. Would your sentiment be the same? Can the organizers then call their event "Open" and keep a straight face?
For a tennis (or rather any sports) person "qualify" means one thing - merit. You win the qualification or you reach certain ranking position and you qualify. All other stuff is not about tennis, but rather about politics (or whatever drives this insanity of over-restricting every aspect of life).
And one does not even have to go to the different country to see different rules for quarantine and whatnot. He only has to go to Western Australia.

Now you're simply being ridiculous.

[meganfernandez]

...

If WTA can pull events from China for the reason that constitutional rights of one retired player were violated, I don't see why ATP can't exercise its authority. This concerns plenty of players who do not want their rights to be violated. And ATP is association of players above all (at least it should be). Slams belong to ITF as a trademark and financially (but mostly each slam is its own enterprise). But ATP has some authority here - it awards ranking points. If ATP does not recognize an event - it essentially becomes and exo. It will be forever asterisked and the winner may not be considered "real slam winner" if the field will be severely depleted. Remember Wimbledon boycott of 1973. I dare you to find an article about Kodes win, that does not mention a boycott.

There would not even be a need for the WTA or ATP to get involved in any of this if the players, individually or collectively, would simple announce that they will not play China until they can meet with Peng, outside of China, behind closed doors (for the people in the meeting) and get her side of the story. A letter signed by Serena, Naomi, Barty, and almost all players of significance (Raducanu, fluent in Mandarin, could be highly symbolic) would do much more than anything the WTA can really achieve.
For the ATP, a win-win scenario. Roger, Rafa, Novak and the new crew would score a major PR victory by standing by Peng. Of course, Roger has too many financial interests in China, but all other players would stand to win considerable respect if doing so.
Now, if you allow me, I am going to write my letter to Santa for my Xmas presents. I do it alphabetically and my first gift will be ATOM BOMB LAUNCHER.

So, let's say the players demand to meet with Peng outside of China privately. The Chinese government has Peng issue a statement saying she doesn't want to and the government says they won't violate her rights and make her. Then what?

They demand to meet with her in China, privately, with their own security?

[meganfernandez]

I'm double vaxxed, but I also agree with No-vax that it is a personal choice whether or not to get the shots.

Sure, as long as the non-vaccinated accept the (restrictive) conditions that come with exercising that choice - which will eventually amount to house arrest and walks in the wilderness, or the personal expense of constant testing. That's not what the Novaxes of the world believe.

[ashkor87]

Wel, that was a fun discussion, anyway..always good to explore the bounds of sense (book by Strawson btw)

[dmforever]

I'm double vaxxed, but I also agree with No-vax that it is a personal choice whether or not to get the shots.

Sure, as long as the non-vaccinated accept the (restrictive) conditions that come with exercising that choice - which will eventually amount to house arrest and walks in the wilderness, or the personal expense of constant testing. That's not what the Novaxes of the world believe.

The problem with it being a personal choice is that they end up using scarce resources (ICU beds, for example) that others need. I get that making people get vaccinated is perhaps a step too far, but their idiocy is not victimless. Also, they may end up transmitting it without even knowing it, so the full scope of their actions is never really known. But y'all know all of this already. It's just so frustrating and even 2 years later, I still feel almost as frustrated as before.

Kevin

[mick1303]

I'm double vaxxed, but I also agree with No-vax that it is a personal choice whether or not to get the shots.

Sure, as long as the non-vaccinated accept the (restrictive) conditions that come with exercising that choice - which will eventually amount to house arrest and walks in the wilderness, or the personal expense of constant testing. That's not what the Novaxes of the world believe.

The problem with it being a personal choice is that they end up using scarce resources (ICU beds, for example) that others need. I get that making people get vaccinated is perhaps a step too far, but their idiocy is not victimless. Also, they may end up transmitting it without even knowing it, so the full scope of their actions is never really known. But y'all know all of this already. It's just so frustrating and even 2 years later, I still feel almost as frustrated as before.

Kevin

There is another problem which is often overlooked in this discussion. All the restrictive measures give an ammunition to power abusers. Not big power abusers (on the level of country dictatorship), but run-of-the-mill everyday power abusers. Like those Australian policemen that were putting the guy on the ground and nearly in the choke-hold because he was not wearing a mask - ON THE STREET IN THE OPEN AIR (it was on YouTube). You think that their idiocy is victimless?

[ponchi101]

...


So, let's say the players demand to meet with Peng outside of China privately. The Chinese government has Peng issue a statement saying she doesn't want to and the government says they won't violate her rights and make her. Then what?

You call their bluff and say that the Chinese government is lying. That is the advantage that the players have; they don't have to go the diplomacy route. The big names in the WTA (Serena and Naomi, for example) don't have to kowtow to the Chinese. They can speak freely.

[mmmm8]

...


So, let's say the players demand to meet with Peng outside of China privately. The Chinese government has Peng issue a statement saying she doesn't want to and the government says they won't violate her rights and make her. Then what?

You call their bluff and say that the Chinese government is lying. That is the advantage that the players have; they don't have to go the diplomacy route. The big names in the WTA (Serena and Naomi, for example) don't have to kowtow to the Chinese. They can speak freely.

Ok, you tell the world the Chinese government is lying, which the world already knows. The WTA already did that Then what?

(And to Megan's suggestion, they can have Peng say she doesn't want to meet them in China either.)

My point is that there is no winning way out of this, unless someone knows where Peng is and wants to track her down and extract her without Chinese government's involvement. And that would have to be a government entity, not tennis players.

[meganfernandez]

...


So, let's say the players demand to meet with Peng outside of China privately. The Chinese government has Peng issue a statement saying she doesn't want to and the government says they won't violate her rights and make her. Then what?

You call their bluff and say that the Chinese government is lying. That is the advantage that the players have; they don't have to go the diplomacy route. The big names in the WTA (Serena and Naomi, for example) don't have to kowtow to the Chinese. They can speak freely.

Ok, you tell the world the Chinese government is lying, which the world already knows. The WTA already did that Then what?

(And to Megan's suggestion, they can have Peng say she doesn't want to meet them in China either.)

My point is that there is no winning way out of this, unless someone knows where Peng is and wants to track her down and extract her without Chinese government's involvement. And that would have to be a government entity, not tennis players.

Do you think she is detained somewhere, or living independently but not freely, being monitored and threatened? If there's no progress, then the WTA pulls out of China altogether, and hopefully some athletes boycott the Olympics. Doesn't help Peng, but as you said, if she is under their control and didn't use the opportunity last week or whenever to signal for help, there's really nothing anyone can do, as far as I know.

[dmforever]

Sure, as long as the non-vaccinated accept the (restrictive) conditions that come with exercising that choice - which will eventually amount to house arrest and walks in the wilderness, or the personal expense of constant testing. That's not what the Novaxes of the world believe.

The problem with it being a personal choice is that they end up using scarce resources (ICU beds, for example) that others need. I get that making people get vaccinated is perhaps a step too far, but their idiocy is not victimless. Also, they may end up transmitting it without even knowing it, so the full scope of their actions is never really known. But y'all know all of this already. It's just so frustrating and even 2 years later, I still feel almost as frustrated as before.

Kevin

There is another problem which is often overlooked in this discussion. All the restrictive measures give an ammunition to power abusers. Not big power abusers (on the level of country dictatorship), but run-of-the-mill everyday power abusers. Like those Australian policemen that were putting the guy on the ground and nearly in the choke-hold because he was not wearing a mask - ON THE STREET IN THE OPEN AIR (it was on YouTube). You think that their idiocy is victimless?

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying or implying that I think choking anti vaxxers is OK?

Kevin

[mick1303]

The problem with it being a personal choice is that they end up using scarce resources (ICU beds, for example) that others need. I get that making people get vaccinated is perhaps a step too far, but their idiocy is not victimless. Also, they may end up transmitting it without even knowing it, so the full scope of their actions is never really known. But y'all know all of this already. It's just so frustrating and even 2 years later, I still feel almost as frustrated as before.

Kevin

There is another problem which is often overlooked in this discussion. All the restrictive measures give an ammunition to power abusers. Not big power abusers (on the level of country dictatorship), but run-of-the-mill everyday power abusers. Like those Australian policemen that were putting the guy on the ground and nearly in the choke-hold because he was not wearing a mask - ON THE STREET IN THE OPEN AIR (it was on YouTube). You think that their idiocy is victimless?

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying or implying that I think choking anti vaxxers is OK?

Kevin

First of all, "Anti vaxxers" is putting a label and oversimplification. Some people are maybe vaccinated but nonetheless they are against extreme measures and vilification of everyone who is not vaccinated. And that rationalization of ostracizing "others" (i.e those who are not vaccinated) is a step in the same direction. Sure, you are not directly calling for choking "anti vaxxers". But what is the logical next step after you proclaimed that they "using scarce resources"?